Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Hello

Posted on: November 10, 2010 - 2:10am

Lucifer_theFallen

Posts: 10

Joined: 2010-11-10

Offline

Hello

I'm a previous theist from 2 years ago who came to this channel seeking answers and a reasonable debate. Sadly, all I got at the time was a bunch of irrational morons who went out of their way to anger me and scare me off.

I'm an atheist now, but honestly...some of you guys need to get off your high horses. Some of you acted arrogant as hell, irrational, and proved to me that even someone who claims to be reasonable can be an idiot. The reason there are so few atheists are probably because the atheists who reached atheism through reason, logic and debates are globbed together with the distheists who are running away from their religion and the contrarians who choose to be atheist simply to be different.

I wanted to say that I became an atheist about 2 years ago in my first year of college. What I wanted to say though was that one of the places I came first was here, and what's funny is that when I looked for someone to talk with and have a rational discussion with, it was the people on this channel who said some of the nasty irrational things that delayed me from finding the information necessary to realize that I was atheist.

My point is, if you're an idiot and you choose to be an atheist or an anti-theist, and your goal in life is to piss off the religious, you're doing more harm than good. I find I would sooner side with a logical Christian than an illogical irrational atheist moron.

So stop scaring off the pseudo-christians and those who call themselves "spiritual" because quite often they are misguided atheists who will eventually join your reasoned side from a simple debate.

I wanted to say that I became an atheist about 2 years ago in my first year of college. What I wanted to say though was that one of the places I came first was here, and what's funny is that when I looked for someone to talk with and have a rational discussion with, it was the people on this channel who said some of the nasty irrational things that delayed me from finding the information necessary to realize that I was atheist.

Do you think everyone processes thoughts the exact same way as you?

Quote:

My point is, if you're an idiot and you choose to be an atheist or an anti-theist, and your goal in life is to piss off the religious, you're doing more harm than good. I find I would sooner side with a logical Christian than an illogical irrational atheist moron.

The irrational atheist moron is always more rational than a Christian when it comes to god belief. The logical Christian is worth siding with (over irrational atheist morons) on OTHER matters.

Quote:

So stop scaring off the pseudo-christians and those who call themselves "spiritual" because quite often they are misguided atheists who will eventually join your reasoned side from a simple debate.

What if I said I have received hundreds of letters in the last 5 years saying that it's precisely because this site has come across as harsh that they've left religion? What then?

Do you remember your username? Chances are, we can still look at those threads from two years ago.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare

I'm a militant atheist, and I eat and breathe snark, but I'm never irrational.

I wasn't around two years ago, but I somewhat doubt the demographics have changed very much. There are a few atheists here who aren't terribly rational, but for the most part your perception was probably flavoured by your opinions at that time. That is, they probably seemed irrational to you, because at that time you believed in some irrational ideas (or at least to some degree) and perceived attack upon those as irrational.

It would be interesting to have a look at the thread. Please share your old user name so we can see what was said to you.

Otherwise, I can only guess that it was a matter of your perception at the time that has left you with that memory.

It would be interesting to dig up your old posts. I have been here on and off for three years now and in my experience a theist that attempts to have a serious discussion is treated well by most of us (for example see the thread with Willie G). However, if a theist becomes bullheaded and simply spouts bible verses as evidence they will be torn to shreds.

Now plenty of us on here are arrogant, and dealing with theists can cause a man to get rude but usually we call each other out on irrationalities.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

I find I would sooner side with a logical Christian than an illogical irrational atheist moron.

Do you consider Christianity to be logical?

One of the most important principles of reason and rationality is to value evidence over anecdotes. With that in mind...

Lucifer_theFallen wrote:

it was the people on this channel who said some of the nasty irrational things that delayed me from finding the information necessary to realize that I was atheist.

Could you provide evidence of these 'nasty irrational things'? What was your old user name? When did you post here? Who were the other users you're accusing of saying nasty and irrational things? What were the specific posts?

If you just supply a bit of those details, I'm sure some of us (I would) would be willing to dig up those threads for you and take a look at your evidential basis for your claim. Easiest way is to let us know your previous user-name. BTW: We won't hold your old posts against you. A lot can change in 2 years.

Quote:

So stop scaring off the pseudo-christians and those who call themselves "spiritual" because quite often they are misguided atheists who will eventually join your reasoned side from a simple debate.

We're not the only game in town. There are lots of places people can go who don't like the unapologetic stance we tend to use on this site. Our strategy definitely works for a range of different types of theists, but we're totally willing to admit that other approaches may work better for other kinds of theists. Our common goals can be reached by a thousand different paths, and we happen to prefer our individual paths, but we don't go around telling other atheists that they *must* follow our path or that they should *stop* following their preferred paths.

So, I would appreciate it if you take your own advice. Your 'path' of convincing me is definitely not working on me. Some evidence would do a much better job of that. If you can clearly demonstrate that we are *actually* doing more harm than good, then I'll go with your evidence. But if you can't, what makes you think you're so right?

I'm a previous theist from 2 years ago who came to this channel seeking answers and a reasonable debate. Sadly, all I got at the time was a bunch of irrational morons who went out of their way to anger me and scare me off.

I'm an atheist now, but honestly...some of you guys need to get off your high horses. Some of you acted arrogant as hell, irrational, and proved to me that even someone who claims to be reasonable can be an idiot. The reason there are so few atheists are probably because the atheists who reached atheism through reason, logic and debates are globbed together with the distheists who are running away from their religion and the contrarians who choose to be atheist simply to be different.

I'm glad to hear you've fallen. Like folks say, it's hard to know what happened back then in terms of context but we have moments of compassionate communication and moments of annoyance, I admit. It's hard to argue sweetly with some one who believes in the concept of genetic evil or eternal torment and denies the entire fossil record. People have their limits and arguments flow into one another across threads at times. I would say there's precious little malice.

There are also those of us with fundy upbringing baggage but most these people are still very straight and I have to say the theistic position that atheists are merely reacting to their upbringing emotionally and without thought is a fallacy. Many of us have spent decades working our way clear of the false thought processes we grew up with.

In any case, pleased to meet you. Can you tell us how you eventually lost your faith?

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck

I find I would sooner side with a logical Christian than an illogical irrational atheist moron.

That's an awesome statement. It's so awesome that I even have to post a reply saying it's awesome, though I intended not to write a reply anymore. The reason for the latter is the same one for why your advice will fall on deaf ears: The atheists you are addressing don't care about the reasoning, only about the outcome. For them it is not a question of arguments - which can be rational or irrational - , instead they define "rational" as "belonging to the right group" ***. Therefor, the case is pretty clear for them:

Sapient wrote:

The irrational atheist moron is always more rational than a Christian when it comes to god belief.

Who cares whether the irrational atheist moron has invalid arguments? He belongs to the right group! That's all that counts, apparently.

Anyway, I just wanted to say that you are right in choosing rationality over atheism. Just don't expect other people here to make this distinction, let alone come to the same decision. If that doesn't discourage you, then I have some questions for you: Imagine that you aren't dealing with atheists, but with a cheap religious cult (pick any you like or dislike, it doesn't matter). Now imagine a member of this cult acting irrationally, yet claiming to be rational, simply because he is a member of this cult (which is the only correct one in his opinion, of course). What is your communication strategy in order to achieve a change of mentality and/or behavior? Do you consider that to be possible at all? And in case you've ever tried that, how did that work out?

These are not rhetorical questions, I'd really like to hear your thoughts and possible experiences on this. Please don't let the nearly inevitable shitstorm following this posting prevent you from answering them Thanks.

(*** On a sidenote: To me, the few ones who may think different aren't worth ignoring the much more numerous who don't - thanks nevertheless for the rational responses!)

I'm a previous theist from 2 years ago who came to this channel seeking answers and a reasonable debate. Sadly, all I got at the time was a bunch of irrational morons who went out of their way to anger me and scare me off.

I'm an atheist now, but honestly...some of you guys need to get off your high horses. Some of you acted arrogant as hell, irrational, and proved to me that even someone who claims to be reasonable can be an idiot. The reason there are so few atheists are probably because the atheists who reached atheism through reason, logic and debates are globbed together with the distheists who are running away from their religion and the contrarians who choose to be atheist simply to be different.

Like other posters have stated, would you mind giving some examples ? If indeed, you did have some instances where you clashed with some people on here, would you say that this would go against the entire board in general ? Would you agree that each person should be the one solely responsible for the content of their posts and not necessarily the depiction of the board as a whole ? There must have been something about this particular forum that interested you or I would guess that you probably would not have come back again. There have been boards that I have participated on, where one day was one day too many, and I did not feel a need to go back to them. What are you hoping to gain from here this time ? Do you think that there could be a possibility that you might have a somewhat different perspective, now that you call yourself an Atheist ? I mean, you don't have to answer all of these questions to me directly if you don't want to, I was just throwing them out there as possible things to consider.

Also, I would like to point out, that there is the possibility of misreading or misinterpreting what is being said on here, that could apply to anyone. We don't have things like facial expressions and tones of voice and familiarity to assess what the intentions of each poster are, the only thing that we truly have on a message board is words on a screen. For instance, there was a debate on a website that was going back and forth between a few people and I about religion. Right in the middle of the discussion, this lady chimed in and said that it would take more faith for me to say that there is no god, than for her to say that their is and that non-belief was a faith. (An argument that I am sure that any Atheist has heard before) Anyway, I just typed back to her the old standby lines of, is not believing in Santa Claus a faith, is not believing in the Tooth Fairy a faith, etc. Her rebuttal was not what I expected, she started accusing me of trying to belittle her, started accusing me of thinking I was smarter than her and a whole bunch of other things. Point being, I was merely asking a question to try and better demonstrate my own personal position. There was no intent to belittle or anything else (truth to be told, if I had wanted to be insulting, I could have done a whole lot worse). But somehow, the simple question, is not believing in Santa Claus a faith, was taken the wrong way. So unless it is blatantly obvious that someone is going out of their way to attack another, I sometimes feel that when dealing with a message board, the benefit of the doubt might be the best course of action to take, if you feel somehow slighted. Just my opinion.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno

I find I would sooner side with a logical Christian than an illogical irrational atheist moron.

That's an awesome statement. It's so awesome that I even have to post a reply saying it's awesome, though I intended not to write a reply anymore. The reason for the latter is the same one for why your advice will fall on deaf ears: The atheists you are addressing don't care about the reasoning, only about the outcome. For them it is not a question of arguments - which can be rational or irrational - , instead they define "rational" as "belonging to the right group" ***. Therefor, the case is pretty clear for them:

Sapient wrote:

The irrational atheist moron is always more rational than a Christian when it comes to god belief.

Who cares whether the irrational atheist moron has invalid arguments? He belongs to the right group! That's all that counts, apparently.

Anyway, I just wanted to say that you are right in choosing rationality over atheism. Just don't expect other people here to make this distinction, let alone come to the same decision. If that doesn't discourage you, then I have some questions for you: Imagine that you aren't dealing with atheists, but with a cheap religious cult (pick any you like or dislike, it doesn't matter). Now imagine a member of this cult acting irrationally, yet claiming to be rational, simply because he is a member of this cult (which is the only correct one in his opinion, of course). What is your communication strategy in order to achieve a change of mentality and/or behavior? Do you consider that to be possible at all? And in case you've ever tried that, how did that work out?

These are not rhetorical questions, I'd really like to hear your thoughts and possible experiences on this. Please don't let the nearly inevitable shitstorm following this posting prevent you from answering them Thanks.

(*** On a sidenote: To me, the few ones who may think different aren't worth ignoring the much more numerous who don't - thanks nevertheless for the rational responses!)

you were labeled a troll, Athene, I thought the trigger was pulled a little early. There may well be flawed arguments from folks on the site but this deliberate baiting you indulge in makes it clear you are operating from a strange position. Can you please be less obvious with your carry on next time you reappear in some other guise? You are making bells ring in my head.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno

If we could do some searches and narrow down the possibilities to a couple dozen posters from that time range, we could use writing analysis to determine which one he was (not terribly difficult, his writing is fairly distinctive and it probably hasn't changed very much in two years).

We're not the only game in town. There are lots of places people can go who don't like the unapologetic stance we tend to use on this site. Our strategy definitely works for a range of different types of theists, but we're totally willing to admit that other approaches may work better for other kinds of theists. Our common goals can be reached by a thousand different paths, and we happen to prefer our individual paths, but we don't go around telling other atheists that they *must* follow our path or that they should *stop* following their preferred paths.

So, I would appreciate it if you take your own advice. Your 'path' of convincing me is definitely not working on me. Some evidence would do a much better job of that. If you can clearly demonstrate that we are *actually* doing more harm than good, then I'll go with your evidence. But if you can't, what makes you think you're so right?

No, what you do is like Bill Maher making the movie religulous or Ben Stein's No intelligence allowed. While both movies are completely contradictory in content, neither one provides the onlooker with an intelligent piece of info. Really I see the one as atheists stroking other atheists, and the other as creationists stroking other creationists. If your goal is to piss off any potential ones who would have joined your side, you either stopped it or delayed it by acting like an a**hole.

You know who made me an atheist? Richard dawkins; Thunderf00t; cold hard logic, not a bunch of guys stroking each other. It is sometimes fun to deal with religious people with derision, but if it is the substance of your argument then you yourself are also a joke. An example I'll re-use is Bill Maher, simply because I view him as being a bigger joke than Ben stein, simple because Ben stein is a moronic jackass, who just makes himself look like more of a moronic jackass. Bill Maher on the other hand holds up his being an atheist as a symbol of intelligence, and then uses no evidence or logic to support his reasoning for being one, just mockery.

If we could do some searches and narrow down the possibilities to a couple dozen posters from that time range, we could use writing analysis to determine which one he was (not terribly difficult, his writing is fairly distinctive and it probably hasn't changed very much in two years).

User probably only posted one or two threads of his own.

Probably has between two and twenty posts...

Anything else that might help?

The problem is that it is bloody hard to remember a username from that long ago. I think it was Renegade_DH; if this site had a better search engine I bet I could find it.

So stop scaring off the pseudo-christians and those who call themselves "spiritual" because quite often they are misguided atheists who will eventually join your reasoned side from a simple debate.

What if I said I have received hundreds of letters in the last 5 years saying that it's precisely because this site has come across as harsh that they've left religion? What then?

Then I'd send you to a Kent Hovind site where the maker says the exact same thing, and has the exact mentality and derision against those he disagrees with. Unfortunately, an argument without substance is like rice without curry: it's bland and tasteless. Again, while mockery is fun, I still think more damage is dealt with logic.

Whoever uses the scientific method to understand something will have the greatest understanding of it be they atheist, agnostic or even theist.

I can see that. But you were NEVER a Christian. The Bible says in I John 1:19 that if they left us, they were never among us. You see, the Bible was not written to Christians. It was written to PROFESSING Christians. Even Paul has some suspicion.

So are you now a theistic satanist? At least you kept the theistic part. You should check out Michael W. Ford. He is hardcore into Satanism. He was head of the Nine Angles, but left because of politics. Now he is a Luciferian, and may be able to help you.

I am a hardcore Christian by God's grace. I do not know why God gave me the knowledge, or why I'm not some emotional atheist trying to be an evangelical atheists because I have a grudge against Christians.

If you have questions about your enemy, a Christian, feel free to ask. It may be fun. Most Satanists are scared to talk to me. I talked to some OTO guys years back in Portland. They took me down to the place where do their ceremonies. Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law, love under will, love under law, book VI, Thelma, Alister Crowley.

Just don't die by chocking on your vomit like Alister Crowley did. He got nuts on drugs.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

I can see that. But you were NEVER a Christian. The Bible says in I John 1:19 that if they left us, they were never among us. You see, the Bible was not written to Christians. It was written to PROFESSING Christians. Even Paul has some suspicion.

So are you now a theistic satanist? At least you kept the theistic part. You should check out Michael W. Ford. He is hardcore into Satanism. He was head of the Nine Angles, but left because of politics. Now he is a Luciferian, and may be able to help you.

I am a hardcore Christian by God's grace. I do not know why God gave me the knowledge, or why I'm not some emotional atheist trying to be an evangelical atheists because I have a grudge against Christians.

If you have questions about your enemy, a Christian, feel free to ask. It may be fun. Most Satanists are scared to talk to me. I talked to some OTO guys years back in Portland. They took me down to the place where do their ceremonies. Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law, love under will, love under law, book VI, Thelma, Alister Crowley.

Just don't die by chocking on your vomit like Alister Crowley did. He got nuts on drugs.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Ah, basking in the glow of Christian love.

Did lucifer say he was a satanist? I must have missed that. Well lucifer, show us how we should deal with Jean respectfully. Good luck. I tried and failed. Funny how Jean loves to point out ad hominem attacks to avoid addressing the issue but turns around and uses them so liberally.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

So, I would appreciate it if you take your own advice. Your 'path' of convincing me is definitely not working on me. Some evidence would do a much better job of that. If you can clearly demonstrate that we are *actually* doing more harm than good, then I'll go with your evidence. But if you can't, what makes you think you're so right?

No, what you do is like Bill Maher making the movie religulous or Ben Stein's No intelligence allowed. ... blah blah blah, red herring, straw man ...

I notice that you did not answer any of my questions, nor did you give any evidence to support your argument.

I repeat: If you cannot clearly demonstrate that we are doing harm, then what makes you think you are so right?

You clearly have difficulty making rational, evidence-based arguments. If you want us to take your criticism seriously, you need to back it up with facts. So far, all you've done is whine and complain.

Quote:

It is sometimes fun to deal with religious people with derision, but if it is the substance of your argument then you yourself are also a joke.

That is not the substance of my argument. So what's your fucking point?

Quote:

An example I'll re-use is Bill Maher, simply because I view him as being a bigger joke than Ben stein, ... blah blah blah ...

It does no good for you to come here complaining about Bill Maher and Ben Stein. Neither are members of this site.

You need to pony up with concrete, real examples, real facts, real evidence, and 'cold hard logic'. You've got such a hard-on for reasoned argument, where the fuck is your reasoned argument? You've got nothing but vague, non-specific complaints. Again, what makes you think you're so right if this is all you've got?

Unfortunately, an argument without substance is like rice without curry: it's bland and tasteless.

Unfortunately for you, Lucifer, your argument is completely without substance. Are you so blind that you cannot see your own incredible hypocrisy?

Quote:

Again, while mockery is fun, I still think more damage is dealt with logic.

I agree. So where is your logic? You do realize that even valid logical arguments require true premises before they can be used to support their conclusions, don't you? Show us this supposed harm we've done. If you cannot do that, you have nothing. I hope you eventually realize this.